Investment Management

On January 22, 2018, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton gave the opening remarks at the Securities Regulation Institute.[1] As part of his remarks, Chairman Clayton discussed the SEC’s approach to the remaining Dodd-Frank rulemaking mandates. The SEC’s approach places the remaining rulemaking into three categories.[2]

In the first category are rules to complete the security-based swap regime.[3] Chairman Clayton seeks to harmonize SEC and CFTC rules governing security based swaps. The SEC and CFTC rules generally vary because of differences in the products and markets of each agency and statutory differences. By harmonizing the SEC’s and CFTC’s rules governing security-based swaps, the SEC hopes to increase effectiveness and reduce costs.[4]

In the second category are rules related to executive compensation for public and SEC-regulated companies.[5] Under recently finalized rules, registrants must provide pay ratio disclosures for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2017. This means some companies will be required to make pay ratio disclosures early this year.[6] The SEC recently released interpretive guidance on the pay ratio rules as the first step in an incremental approach to implement the remaining executive compensation rules.[7]

In the third category are specialized disclosure rules, like resource extraction disclosure.[8] Chairman Clayton noted multiple constraints on the rule implementation process in this area, including the Administrative Procedure Act, legal challenges, and the Congressional Review Act and how any proposed rule will take these factors into account.[9] In addition, Chairman Clayton stated any rule should reflect market developments that have “mitigated some of the motivation behind the statutory requirement.”[10]

While Chairman Clayton’s tenure has not been marked by formal rulemaking, his remarks indicate substantial rulemaking is on the horizon. Fortunately, market participants have anticipated these rules since Dodd-Frank was enacted in 2010 and Chairman Clayton has been clear in his approach.

If you have any questions about Chairman Clayton’s remarks or Dodd-Frank mandates generally, please feel free to contact us.

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s Winston-Salem and New York offices. John I. Sanders and Lauren Henderson are associates based in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

Over the past few months, there has been a great deal of excitement among investors about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. This excitement intensified in recent weeks as Bitcoin values rose 1800% and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange began to allow trading of Bitcoin futures.[i]

The sudden emergence of cryptocurrencies has been met with concern by the SEC. Earlier this year, the SEC issued an Investor Bulletin on Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) highlighting some of the risks of investing in ICOs.[ii] Last week, with interest in cryptocurrencies reaching new heights, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton issued an official statement on cryptocurrencies and ICOs.[iii] The statement addressed both “Main Street” investors and market professionals (e.g., investment advisers, broker-dealers, and securities lawyers). Here are the four key takeaways for investment advisers:

Any activity that involves an offering of securities, whether novel or not, must be accompanied by disclosures, processes, and other investor protections required by securities laws.[iv]

In evaluating whether ICOs should be registered, investment advisers should review the SEC’s investigative report on ICOs and consult with legal counsel as needed.[v]

Excessive touting of investments in thinly-traded and volatile markets is a red flag that may indicate scalping, pump and dump schemes, and other forms of market manipulation.[vi]

A decision to allow payments in cryptocurrency, purchasing cryptocurrency on margin, or other uses of cryptocurrency to facilitate securities transactions should be accompanied by a review of anti-money laundering and know-your customer requirements.[vii]

If you have any questions about Chairman Clayton’s statement as it relates to investment advisers or the regulation of investment adviser more generally, we invite you to contact us directly.

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s Winston-Salem and New York offices. John I. Sanders and Lauren Henderson are associates based in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

Only one month after Morgan Stanley withdrew from the Protocol for Broker Recruiting (the “Protocol”), a second major brokerage firm has announced its intention to withdraw effective December 1st. UBS says it is withdrawing as part of a strategy to focus on retaining its current brokers instead of recruiting brokers from competitors. [i] Still, many observers believe Morgan Stanley’s and UBS’s withdrawals are meant “to stanch the flow of brokers and client assets.”[ii] This flow, of course, has quickened in recent years as advisers have left traditional, large brokerage firms to form independent advisory firms.[iii]

When Morgan Stanley withdrew from the Protocol, many speculated as to whether the Protocol would survive.[iv] Such speculation has only increased as sources have confirmed that Morgan Stanley’s withdrawal was the catalyst for UBS’s departure.[v] We expect more firms are currently considering how to respond to two of the largest brokerage firms withdrawing from the Protocol, and we would not be surprised to see similar announcements before year-end.

If you have questions about the recent withdrawals from the Protocol or general questions about the complexities that arise in establishing an independent advisory firm, please feel free to contact us directly.

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s Winston-Salem and New York offices. John I. Sanders and Lauren Henderson are associates based in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

On November 15, 2017, the SEC announced the results of its enforcement actions for fiscal year 2017 and stated its enforcement priorities for fiscal year 2018.

During fiscal year 2017, the SEC brought 754 enforcement actions, returned $1.07 billion to harmed investors, and obtained judgments and orders totaling $3.789 billion in disgorgement and penalties.[i] Of the 754 enforcement actions, 446 were standalone cases.[ii] Investment advisory issues, securities offerings, and issuer reporting each accounted for 20% of the standalone cases, roughly in line with fiscal year 2016 results.[iii]

In the current fiscal year, the following five core principles will guide the SEC’s enforcement actions:[iv]

Both the enforcement results for the recently completed fiscal year and the stated priorities for the current fiscal year reflect Chairman Clayton’s oft-articulated dedication to the SEC’s mandates: protect investors, maintain fair and efficient markets, facilitate capital formation.

If you have any questions about the SEC enforcement actions or enforcement priorities, please feel free to contact us directly.

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s Winston-Salem and New York offices. John I. Sanders and Lauren Henderson are associates based in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

On January 3, 2018, the European Commission’s sweeping reform, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (“MiFID II”), will become effective. MiFID II applies to firms providing investment services or performing investment activities in the European Union (the “E.U.”).[1] E.U. investment advisers, naturally, will be among those effected. However, U.S. investment advisers who transact in European financial markets or offer investment advice to E.U. citizens through separately managed accounts (“SMAs”), pooled products (e.g., hedge funds), or indirectly through sub-advisory arrangements may be effected as follows:

Trading Equities and Derivatives: Under MiFID II, equity trading must occur on regulated markets, multilateral trading facilities, systematic internalisers, or equivalent third country venues.[2] Accordingly, over-the-counter trading of European equities may be severely restricted and the cost of trading certain securities may increase substantially. In addition, derivatives are subject to new reporting requirements and national regulators are empowered to set position limits for certain derivatives.[3]

Marketing Separately Managed Accounts: Each U.S. investment adviser must review licensing requirements in each jurisdiction where an E.U. client or potential client resides to determine whether the adviser must establish a branch or obtain a license to do business in the jurisdiction.[4]

Marketing Pooled Products: U.S. investment advisers that offer alternative investment funds (“AIFs”) will be governed by the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (“AIFMD”) and jurisdiction-specific private placement rules, not MiFID II, when engaging in marketing activities for an AIF.[5] Likewise, U.S. investment advisers offering Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (“UCITSs”) are not directly subject to MiFID II when marketing a UCITS to E.U. clients, but will be indirectly impacted by MiFID II’s investor protection regime.[6]

Providing Sub-Advisory Services to E.U. Firms: E.U. firms subject to MiFID II may attempt to delegate compliance obligations to U.S. investment advisers serving as their sub-advisors. Among compliance obligations likely to be passed to the U.S. sub-advisor are those related to transparency and reporting.[7]

We invite you to contact us directly if you have any questions about the application of MiFID II to U.S. investment advisers.

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s Winston-Salem and New York offices. John I. Sanders and Lauren Henderson are associates based in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

[1]Directive 2014/65/EUof the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on Markets in Financial Instruments and Amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU, 2014 O.J. (L 173) 349, 374.

On August 23rd, the Second Circuit issued its much-anticipated opinion in U.S. v. Martoma, affirming the 2014 insider trading conviction of S.A.C. Capital Advisors portfolio manager Matthew Martoma.[1] In doing so, it clarified an important point regarding what is required to convict a person who trades on a tip received from an insider. We believe this decision will have an immediate impact on how hedge fund portfolio managers and other investment advisers interact with third party resources.

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934[2] and Rule 10b-5[3] promulgated thereunder prohibit insider trading. The basic elements of insider trading are: (i) engaging in a securities transaction, (ii) while in possession of material, non-public information, (iii) in violation of a duty to refrain from doing so.

Under the classic theory of insider trading, a corporate insider trades in shares of his employer while in possession of material, non-public information (e.g., advance notice of a merger). In addition to the classic theory of insider trading, case law has extended the liability to persons who receive tips from insiders (i.e., individuals whose duty to refrain from trading is derived or inherited from the corporate insider’s duty). Thus, not only may insiders be liable for insider trading, but those to whom they pass tips, either directly (tippees) or through others (remote tippees) may be liable if they trade on such tips.

The seminal case involving tippee liability is Dirks v. SEC.[4] In Dirks, the U.S. Supreme Court held the following:

In determining whether a tippee is under an obligation to disclose or abstain, it is necessary to determine whether the insider’s “tip” constituted a breach of the insider’s fiduciary duty. Whether disclosure is a breach of duty depends in large part on the personal benefit the insider receives as a result of the disclosure. Absent an improper purpose, there is no breach of duty to stockholders. And absent a breach by the insider, there is no derivative breach.[5]

The question of what constituted a “personal benefit” was left ill-defined until the Second Circuit gave it shape in U.S. v. Newman.[6]Newman held that a tipper and tippee must have a “meaningfully close personal relationship” and that the insider information be divulged in exchange for “a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature” for the court to find the tipper had breached his fiduciary duty to the source.[7] For a period of time after the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Newman, it seemed that Martoma’s conviction was likely to be overturned.

Unfortunately for Martoma, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in U.S. v. Salman while Martoma’s appeal was pending.[8] In Salman, the U.S. Supreme Court flatly rejected certain aspects of the Newman holding and called others into question.[9] Accordingly, the Second Circuit held in Martoma that “Salman fundamentally altered the analysis underlying Newman’s ‘meaningfully close relationship’ requirement such that the ‘meaningfully close personal relationship’ requirement is no longer good law.”[10]

In Martoma, the court held that rather than looking at objective elements of the relationship between tipper and tippee, the proper inquiry is now whether the corporate insider divulged the relevant information with the expectation that the tippee would trade on it.[11] This is “because such a disclosure is the functional equivalent of trading on the information himself and giving the cash gift to the recipient.”[12]

Please contact us if you have any questions about the Second Circuit’s opinion in Martoma or the law concerning insider trading generally.

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s Winston-Salem and New York offices. John I. Sanders is an associate based in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

The SEC has declared cybersecurity to be an examination priority for financial institutions (i.e., broker-dealers, investment advisers, and registered investment companies) in each of the past four years.[1] While the SEC’s comments in these examination priority releases are helpful for financial institutions, we believe that the SEC may have provided more useful guidance concerning cybersecurity practices through investor bulletins designed to help investors avoid online fraud.[2] This guidance reveals helpful insights into the SEC’s evolving approach to cybersecurity. Accordingly, based on the SEC’s most recently issued guidance to investors, we identify six ways financial institutions could improve their cybersecurity policies and procedures below.[3]

1. Passwords. The SEC has recommended that investors choose a strong password (e., one that includes symbols, numbers, and both capital and lowercase letters) for online access, keep their password secure, and change it regularly.[4] Consistent with this recommendation, financial institutions may want to consider requiring clients to choose strong passwords and change them regularly.

2. Biometric Safeguards. The SEC has recommended that investors contact their financial institutions to determine whether they offer biometric safeguards (g., fingerprinting, facial and voice recognition, and retina scans) for mobile device access.[5] Although biometric safeguards are not currently a standard security feature, financial institutions may want to consider ways they can add biometric safeguards as a feature of mobile device access for their clients.

3. Public Computers. The SEC has recommended that investors avoid using public computers to access investment accounts.[6] When an investor does use a public computer, the SEC recommends investors take the following precautions: disable password saving; delete files, caches, and cookies; and log out of accounts completely when finished.[7] Financial institutions could help investors follow the SEC’s helpful, but often forgotten, advice by, for example, requiring them to proactively check a box to enable password saving on each new device and automatically logging users out of their online accounts after relatively short periods of inactivity.

4. Secure Websites. The SEC has recommended that investors not log in to an account unless the relevant financial institution’s website has a secure “https” address.[8] Many financial institutions have a secure website already, but those that do not may want to consider implementing one.

5. Links. The SEC has recommended that clients never click on links sent to them by financial institutions with which they do not have a relationship, and to confirm the legitimacy of links sent to them by their financial institutions by calling or emailing the purported sender.[9] In response to this advice, financial institutions may want to use links judiciously, and ensure that those who will receive calls and emails from clients know what links have been sent to which clients and under what circumstances. Without such knowledge, financial institution employees may be unable to confirm or deny the legitimacy of the link, undermining client confidence in the financial institution’s cybersecurity policies and procedures.

6. Review Account Statements. The SEC has recommended that investors regularly review statements and trade confirmations for suspicious activity and contact their financial institution with a written complaint if there is suspicious activity.[10] In response, financial institutions may want to evaluate their security procedures with respect to redemptions and distributions. Adopting reliable technological innovations can help prevent suspicious activity and create a business advantage (g., using biometric safeguards or two-factor authentication may be more reliable and less time-consuming than requiring signature guarantees).

Please contact us if you have any questions about this article or the SEC’s cybersecurity guidance.

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s Winston-Salem and New York offices. John I. Sanders is an associate based in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

[2] SEC, Cybersecurity, the SEC and You (last visited July 25, 2017), available athttps://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity (containing a library of resources of both investors and securities industry professionals related to cybersecurity).

Since the 1970s, courts have regularly ordered disgorgement of ill-gotten gains in SEC enforcement proceedings.[1] According to the SEC, this was done as a means to both “deprive . . . defendants of their profits in order to remove any monetary reward for violating” securities laws and “protect the investing public by providing an effective deterrent to future violations.”[2] Disgorgement has been one of the SEC’s most powerful tools in recent years.[3] Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that significantly limits the SEC’s ability to disgorge ill-gotten gains.[4]

The question before the Supreme Court in Kokesh v. SEC was whether disgorgement, as it has been used by the SEC, constitutes a “penalty.”[5] Under federal law, a 5-year statute of limitations applies to any “action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise.”[6] The SEC has long argued that disgorgement does not constitute a “penalty” and, therefore, is not subject to a 5-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the SEC’s position by holding that disgorgement constitutes a “penalty.”[7] As a result, the SEC will be precluded from collecting ill-gotten gains obtained by the defendant more than five years before the date on which the SEC files its complaint.[8]

In the Kokesh case, the Supreme Court’s decision means that the defendant may retain $29.9 million of the $34.9 million of allegedly ill-gotten gains because that amount was received outside of the 5-year state of limitations.[9] The Kokesh decision is also likely to have a significant long-term impact on SEC enforcement proceedings by reducing the leverage the SEC can apply while negotiating settlements.

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s Winston-Salem and New York offices. John I. Sanders is an associate based in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

[3] SEC, SEC Announces Enforcement Results for FY 2016 (Oct. 11, 2016), available athttps://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-212.html (illustrating that the SEC has obtained more than $4 billion in disgorgements and penalties in each of the three most recent fiscal years).

[7]Kokesh v. SEC, supra note 4, available at www.supremecourt.gov. (“SEC disgorgement thus bears all the hallmarks of a penalty: It is imposed as a consequence of violating a public law and it is intended to deter, not to compensate.”).

On March 29, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) issued a noteworthy opinion in In re KCD Financial Inc.,[i] a review of a FINRA disciplinary action.[ii] While the opinion affirmed FINRA’s disciplinary action,[iii] it also affirmed the SEC’s zero-tolerance policy regarding general solicitations made in the course of certain Regulation D offerings. Those relying on or contemplating relying on Regulation D exemptions from registration should review the SEC’s opinion.

Factual Background

KCD Financial, Inc. (“KCD”) is an independent broker-dealer.[iv] In 2011, KCD signed an agreement with one of its affiliates (“Westmount”) under which it would solicit accredited investors for a particular private fund (the “Fund”) sponsored by Westmount.[v] Westmount did not plan to register the offering. Westmount instead planned to rely on a Rule 506(b) exemption from registration.[vi]

Prior to KCD selling any interest in the Fund, Westmount issued a press release describing the Fund.[vii] Two Dallas newspapers published articles based on the press release and made the articles available on their respective public websites.[viii] One of those newspaper articles was then posted on a public website belonging to a Westmount affiliate.[ix] Westmount’s outside counsel informed Westmount that the newspaper articles constituted general solicitations, which are prohibited in Rule 506(b) offerings.[x]

After KCD and Westmount officers were told that the articles were general solicitations prohibited under Rule 506(b), they did not end the offering, register the securities, or seek to rely on an alternative exemption. Instead, KCD’s CCO and Westmount’s Vice President of Capital Markets instructed the representatives to sell interests in the Fund only to (i) those with an existing relationship to KCD or Westmount and (ii) accredited investors who had not learned of the offering through the general solicitations.[xi] Under those guidelines, at least one person was refused an opportunity to purchase interests in the Fund.[xii]

During a FINRA examination of KCD, the examiner found that the newspaper article about the offering had not been removed from a Westmount-affiliated website.[xiii] Subsequently, FINRA filed a complaint against KCD alleging that the firm’s registered representatives sold securities that were unregistered and not qualified for an exemption from registration, thereby violating FINRA Rule 2010.[xiv] FINRA also alleged that KCD failed to reasonably supervise the offering, thereby violating FINRA Rule 3010.[xv] FINRA’s Hearing Panel found that KCD violated those rules.[xvi] FINRA censured KCD and imposed a fine of $73,000.[xvii] The National Adjudicatory Counsel affirmed FINRA’s decision.[xviii] KCD then requested an SEC review.[xix]

SEC Review

KCD admitted that the Fund interests it offered were not registered, but argued that offers were made pursuant to Rule 506(b).[xx] The SEC rejected KCD’s contention,[xxi] finding that where a party relying on the Rule 506(b) exemption makes a general solicitation, the exemption then is unavailable “regardless of the number of accredited investors or the knowledge and experience of the purchasers who were not accredited investors.”[xxii] In this context, whether purchasers were accredited or had prior relationships with KCD and Westmount was “irrelevant to whether or not the newspaper articles constituted a general solicitation” and precluded reliance on Rule 506(b).[xxiii]

KCD also argued, assuming the newspaper articles constituted general solicitations, it could still rely on a Rule 506(b) exemption because “KCD did not generally solicit any of the actual investors in the [Westmount] Fund.”[xxiv] This argument confused the notion of what is prohibited under Rule 506(b). It is making an offer by general solicitation which precludes reliance on a Rule 506(b) exemption.[xxv] Whether a sale results directly from the general solicitation is irrelevant.[xxvi]

Practical Implications

The SEC’s opinion affirms its view that exemptions from registration in securities offerings are narrowly construed and must be adhered to strictly.[xxvii] Where, as here, the exemption prohibits a general solicitation, any general solicitation forever forfeits the issuer’s ability to rely on the exemption in making the offering (i.e., the toothpaste cannot go back into the tube).

Those making exempt offerings in reliance on Rule 504,[xxviii] Rule 505,[xxix] and Rule 506(b)[xxx] should review their sales practices in light of the KCD opinion. In reviewing practices, issuers should look beyond the obvious means of making a general solicitation (e.g., a press release that is published by a widely-circulated newspaper). Websites and social media accounts of those participating in the offerings are equally capable of precluding use of a valuable registration exemption.

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s New York and Winston-Salem, North Carolina offices. John I. Sanders is an associate based out of the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

Under the Jumpstart our Business Startups Acts of 2012 (the “JOBS Act”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted rules allowing for securities-based crowdfunding in 2015.[i] The JOBS Act required the SEC to adjust dollar limits placed on the amount that could be invested or raised through securities-based crowdfunding at least every five years to account for inflation.[ii] On April 5, 2017, the SEC issued a final rule adjusting those limits for the first time.[iii] We encourage those interested in issuing securities through a securities-based crowdfunding offering to review the final rule and call us with any questions you may have.

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s New York and Winston-Salem, North Carolina offices. John Sanders is an associate based out of the firm’s Winston-Salem office.